To

The Joint Commissioner,

HR & CE Department,

Sambandar Sannathi Street,

Mayiladuthurai 609001.

 

Sir,

 

Sub:
Use of Palanquin for Pattinappiravesam – unlawful action of the seer of Dharmapuram Aadheenam – complaint under Sec. 63 (e) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – decision- requested. 

 
Ref:
Directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras at Madurai in W.P. (MD) 14229 of 2009 and W.P. (MD) 13055 of 2010 on 19.10.2010 in Vedavyasa R. Lakshmi Narasimha Battar Swami Vs. The Commissioner of HR & CE.
 

We would like to state that the seer of the Dharmapuram Aadheenam does not have any right to insist that he would go for Pattinappiravesam only in a palanquin, when there are available convertible cars without roofs for such processions and the seer is making use of various latest scientific inventions for his use and comfort. 

2. We invite your kind attention to the provisions in Sec. 63 (e) of the Hindu Religious Charities and Endowments Act, 1959, to prevent the unlawful activity of the seer of the Dharmapuram Aadheenam, who insists on going by the palanquin. 

3. It is submitted that, first of all, while Pattinappiravesam may be called a religious right, going by palanquin for Pattinappiravesam cannot be claimed to be a ‘religious’ right but can, at best, be called only a secular right. It has nothing to do with religion. Travel of a seer by palanquin does not constitute any of the customs, usage and traditions which are integral part or essential part of religion. The action of the seer in insisting on going by palanquin is absolutely against morality and reform. 

4. Secondly, while the seer concerned may claim that unwarranted and useless Pattinappiravesam to be a custom, he cannot claim that going by palanquin is a custom. That is not a custom at all and even if it is claimed to be so. It is really a custom contra naturam and the seer should not be allowed to use palanquin and thereby take the civilised society back to the medieval era. Making fellow human beings carry a healthy man by palanquin is an insult to the humanity, both then and now. The seer in having retrograde mentality and is indulging in such anti-humane antics, with the mala fide intention of not allowing the Hindu religion to reform itself. Hon’ble High Court of Madras has held, “Even if certain practices have been followed for a long number of years and even if such practices can be taken to form part of the religious rights, recognised under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, reasonable restrictions can be imposed on such practices by the State, on certain specific grounds.” (Para 35 of the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Vedavyasa R. Lakshmi Narasimha vs The Commissioner of HR & CE on 19 October 2010)

5. Thirdly, the Hindu religion needs reforms in certain specific areas and has been evolving in the right direction, as could be seen from the decision of the Board of Trustees of Arulmihu Sree Ranganathar temple, at Srirangam, Trichy, which had passed a resolution No.107, on 27.09.2010, giving up the practice of carrying person in a Palanquin, in the temple premises. But the seer of Dharmapuram Aadheenam wants to set the clock back just for his egoistic whim and self-glorification. 

6. It is submitted that that resolution No.107, on 27.09.2010 of the Board of Trustees of Arulmihu Sree Ranganathar temple, at Srirrangam, Trichy, was not just to prevent the palanquin procession in the temple premises on religious grounds but to abolish the system of palanquin itself on humanitarian grounds. It has, very clearly, been stated in the said resolution that the carrying of persons in Palanquins in the temple premises, “would amount to infringement of the human dignity of those who are carrying the Palanquins”. The Board had, thus, traversed beyond the temple premises in its reasoning and kept in view the infringement of the human dignity. That ratio applies squarely to the present controversy stoked by the seer of Dharmapuram because of his unlawful desire to go around the town in palanquin. 

7. Fourthly, the Tamil Nadu Association of Temple Employees had also passed a resolution, on 23.10.2010, stating that they would not take part in the practice of carrying persons in Palanquins in the temple premises.” (Para 36 of the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Vedavyasa R. Lakshmi Narasimha vs The Commissioner on 19 October 2010). The reason underlying their resolution is applicable mutatis mutandis to the persons who now come forward to carry the palanquin of the seer of Dharmapuram, because of undue influence or servile mentality.

8. Fifthly, the “National Human Rights Commission directed the Calcutta Police to abolish the system of pulling rickshaws by a man and described it to be an Inhuman matter” (referred to by the High Court of Calcutta in Para 13 & 14 All Bengal Rickshaw Union Vs. State of West Bengal 14.12.1999). That ratio decidendi applies to the palanquins also which are carried on shoulders by fellow human beings. 

9. It is, therefore, requested that you may kindly exercise the power vested in you under law as per Sec. 63 (e ) of the HR & CE Act, 1959 and ensure that the seer of Dharmapuram Aadheenam does not resort to any such inhumane and unlawful antics of going on Pattinappiravesam in Palanquin. 

Yours faithfully,

Tamil devotees.

 

Copy to the Commissioner, HR&CE  Department,119,  Uttamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600034.  commr.hrce@tn.gov.in

Copy to the District Collector, Mayiladuthurai. collr-myd@nic.in